memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:USS Newton
PNA The author of this article claims that his source is the closed captioning of the DVD. It would be helpful if there were other sources besides this, such as a script or even comments from the crew.--31dot 03:00, November 7, 2009 (UTC) : The bginfo suggests that there is information from production sources as well, so the source is more than just DVD cc. --Alan 18:36, November 7, 2009 (UTC) ::A good find, but it also seems somewhat tricky to use at the moment, unless someone was able to watch the feature and heard "we used the name" or along those lines, because the preview image also shows a "USS Defiant", but I haven't seen a page made for it. --Terran Officer 19:00, November 7, 2009 (UTC) : No but it was added to the page a while ago. I was personally going to wait for the video release of the film before I adjusted the page naming accordingly, but then again, not everyone shares that kind of patience. --Alan 19:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC) ::The Newton is mentioned twice in the film. The list is as follows: :::Male Officer: USS Newton - USS Odyssey - Regula 1 - USS Farragut - USS Enterprise - USS Walcott - USS Hood :::Female Officer: USS Odyssey - USS Newton - USS Farragut - USS Antares :::Can we confirm this list? Thanks.– 01:27, November 8, 2009 (UTC) ::::Becomes clear others have watched this very recent, so I suppose I can help to clear this up, in the subtitles, I see (and heard faintly) Farragut, Enterprise, (louder) Walcott, and Hood. I can also confirm Farragut to Uhura and Antares, it's possible that Odyssey was said, but I cannot confirm that. I also cannot confirm Newton, odysee or Regula 1 from the first speaker. --Terran Officer 01:55, November 8, 2009 (UTC) :::::I've just checked this in the film. The dialogue is "Fugeman, ; Gerace, ; McCoy, ; McGrath, ; Rader, ." These names were read by actor Paul McGillion. There are more names, read by Lisa Vidal, " , Uhura, ; Petrovsky, ". Registry and Photo Although we have the design concept for a ship named Newton in the concept art, I don't see anything in the photo which confirms either the registry or that the ship in the photo is the Newton. Actually, if we compare the concept art to the finished product, where the registry should be, it isn't. (I am beginning to think the lesser models, with the exception of the Mayflower, weren't labeled with either names or registries. For those who have an interest in starships, like me, it's frustrating. While this lack of detail in a tv show is excusable, it isn't so in a big budget film.) I recommend, if we are adhering to a strict canon definition, that the registry and photo be removed.– Throwback 01:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC) :The article states that there are other sources (sketches) for the name to associate it with that picture, which if there is no canon mention of such(but is a mention from some official source) is acceptable as long as it is noted as such.--31dot 08:45, November 17, 2009 (UTC) :: And it seems that the name was called out. --Alan 16:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC) We can also see another ship of the same type on right side of Enterprise. Why isn't it the Newton?--KiTeLetZ 05:26, January 30, 2011 (UTC) Was the USS Newton destroyed at Vulcan? There is a picture of a Newton-class starship at Starbase 1 in "Star Trek: Into Darkness". The 4K edition makes it possible to read the registry on the nacelle. It is "NCC-1727" - the registry of the Newton. Could the Newton have not made it to Vulcan, say, for engineering reasons and, if so, should this ship be considered as active in 2259? I learned about the appearance of the Newton from a discussion at Flare - http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/6/2822.html--[[User:Memphis77|Memphis77]] (talk) 06:41, January 5, 2017 (UTC) :The Newton was clearly destroyed at Vulcan- in reality they may have reused the model or footage in ID. Within the universe maybe they built another ship and reused the number. 31dot (talk) 09:19, January 5, 2017 (UTC) ::I can't read that registry, but if it is the same, it should be mentioned here at the very least. - 20:23, January 5, 2017 (UTC) :I can't see it either, but I agree if they are the same it should be mentioned. 31dot (talk) 00:22, January 6, 2017 (UTC)